Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Why SPAM is worse in SMTP than in other protocols

From: Vern Paxson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 09:32:12 -0800

> Quite, but this refers to group formation. Not rechartering of an existing
> group.

My point was that formation is not a necessarily public process.  I view
rechartering the same way, and this is how I've done it in the past (e.g.,
the IPN RG -> DTN, the SMUG RG -> GSEC).  It doesn't happen in a vacuum,
though - the recharter is discussed with the IRSG and the IAB.

		Vern

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: "Jon Kyme" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 10:15:49 +0000

>though - the recharter is discussed with the IRSG and the IAB.

You're saying that the rechartering (or winding up old-group and new-group
formation) in the cases of IPN and SMUG was achieved by the chairs acting
alone and presented to the community as a fait accompli without
consultation?

I'm sure many people will be surprised by this.

Anyway, that wasn't the question - that rechartering should or shouldn't be
a "necessarily public process". In the *particular* case of *this* (9 month
old) group it appears to have been decided that the work of the group is
either finished or not possible under the current charter. Is this the
case? And why are the views of contributors not sought on this? That, I
guess, is (are) the question(s).

--